伦理意见255

在合同基础上使用前澳博app

A law firm and a former firm lawyer employed by the firm by contract on a case-by-case basis are 不 regarded as a single entity for conflicts purposes so long as clients of the firm are accurately informed about the nature of the relationship between the firm and the contract lawyer and so long as no impression is created that there is a continuing relationship between the firm and the lawyer.

适用的规则

• 规则1.5(e)(费用分摊)
• 规则1.7(b)(4)(澳博app自身利益造成的冲突)
• 规则1.10(a)(推定取消资格)
• 规则7.1(a)(关于澳博app服务的通讯)

调查

The Inquirer is a law firm (the Firm) that is engaged in the practice of law in the District of Columbia and is incorporated under the D.C. 专业公司法. 一位股东澳博app, 我们称他为B, is terminating his employment agreement with the Firm and his general association with the Firm as a practicing lawyer, 尽管他仍将是公司的股东(经D.C. 法典第29-608条)，除非且直到他的股份被公司买断.  B将不再, 然而, 公司的任何利润或亏损, and his name will 不 appear in the Firm’s letterhead or in any lists of Firm lawyers in Martindale-Hubbell or similar publications.

B将成为X公司的高级职员, 但他在X公司的职位不会涉及提供法律服务. 公司X将从公司转租空间，B将占用该转租空间. 该转租包含一项对X公司及其雇员负有义务的条款, 包括B, 不听:不听或不检查与公司客户或公司业务有关的事情. The Firm has also established a screening system and taken other steps to assure that no confidential information of the Firm or its clients is made available, 未经授权, 给X公司或给B公司. 除了, B will be excluded from the Firm’s conflict clearance system and will thus 不 have access to information about new client matters of the Firm.

因为B在该律所将继续从事的某一法律专业领域具有专长, 公司考虑与B达成一项安排, X公司已同意的, 其中，它建议不时雇用B, 作为独立承包商, 作为澳博app或专家证人协助本所向客户提供法律服务. 公司和B考虑订立一项总合同, under which B would agree to consider serving in particular matters as a contract attorney (designated as “special counsel”) or as an expert witness, 或就公司聘用B的每一事项签订的个别事项特定合同. B不能从公司得到任何特定金额的付款保证.

The Firm also proposes to include 在宣传材料和信件中 to clients representations that B’s services are available to the Firm in his field of expertise when such services may be ethically provided and subject to his obligations to 公司 X.

基于这些事实, the Firm requests our advice as to (1) whether the arrangements it contemplates will result in imputation to the Firm under 规则1.B因其作为X公司行政人员的身份而被取消其在其所从事的事务中的资格 不 assisting the firm 作为独立承包商; and (2) whether the representations that the Firm intends to make in promotional letters to clients are consistent with 规则7.1.

讨论

当B成为X公司的雇员时，他将不再担任X公司的澳博app. 规则1的大部分规定.7, 因此, would 不 apply to work done by B as a contract lawyer for the Firm because they are triggered by a lawyer representing clients in more than one matter. 然而，根据规则1,B在X公司的职位可能导致B被取消资格.7(b)(4),¹ 在这种情况下他代表客户的专业判断会, 或者有可能, be adversely affected by B’s responsibilities to 公司 X or his interest in 公司 X created by his high-level executive position.

在任何情况下，根据规则1 B将被取消代表客户的资格.(b)(4)由于他对X公司的责任或利益, 根据规则1，该公司显然也会被取消资格.10(a)如果B作为合同澳博app与该公司有关联.² The question posed by the 调查 is whether the Firm’s contemplated relationship with B is a sufficiently ongoing alliance or association to impute to the Firm B’s disqualifications even on Firm matters on which B is 不 working as a contract lawyer.

我们不这么认为. 当然, both this Committee and the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility have held that a continuing “of counsel” relationship between a lawyer and a firm or a continuing relationship between two firms (as in the case of a “correspondent” law firm) result in the lawyer and the Firm, 或者这两家公司, 出于冲突目的而被视为单一实体. 看到 D.C. 意见没有. 192 (May 17, 1988); ABA Formal 意见没有. 84-351(1984年10月20日). 但, 在我们看来, 澳博app临时与某公司联合, 具体问题具体分析并不能创造出那种持续的关系, 根据第1节触发归咎.个人澳博app被取消资格的10项通知事务所, except with respect to the individual matters on which the lawyer is associated with the firm—so long as the firm does 不 create the impression among its clients or the public at large that such a continuing relationship exists.

在这里，B不会出现在事务所的信笺上，也不会出现在事务所澳博app的其他名单上. He will be screened from confidential information about Firm clients and matters on which he is 不 employed 作为独立承包商. And promotional materials and letters to clients that mention his availability will make clear that he is available to work on specific matters on a case-by-case basis and that he does 不 have a continuing relationship with the Firm. 我们相信这些措施足以避免将B的不合格归咎于公司. 看到 美国澳博app协会正式意见88-356. 16, 1988).

然而，我们还要提出一个警告. 我们认为不应使用“特别澳博app”一词来描述B与本所的关系. 而术语可能被恰当地认为仅表示特定情况下的关系, we 不e that the term “special counsel” is also used by many law firms more or less interchangeably with terms such as “counsel” and “of counsel,来命名一段持续的关系. 看到 美国澳博app协会正式意见90-357(1990年5月10日). 虽然所有这些术语都有一个不断发展的而不是一个固定的含义(看到 D.C. 意见没有. 151(四月十六日), 1985)), we think that the Firm in this case would be well-advised to refer to B as a “consultant” or “contract lawyer” rather than a “special counsel.”

同样的警告也适用于调查提出的第二个问题. 我们认为没有违反第7条规则.1³ 在公司计划中向潜在客户描述, 在宣传材料和信件中, B在特定案件中作为合同澳博app或专家证人的可用性. 这里的关键是充分和准确的披露. As the ABA Committee had occasion to observe recently in the context of discussing networks or alliances between law firms, “这很关键。, 不管用什么词来形容企业之间的关系, for clients to receive information that will tell them the exact nature of the relationship and the extent to which resources of a不her firm will be available in connection with the client’s retention of the firm that is claiming the relationship.美国澳博app协会正式意见94-388(1994年12月5日). 规则7的任务规定.1 can be met only if a full description of the relationship is provided to all prospective and present clients for whom the relationship may be relevant. Id.

同样的原则也适用于此, and we conclude that the planned representations by the Firm as to its relationship with B are adequate to assure compliance with 规则7.1. 我们再次推荐, 然而, 律所不得使用“特别澳博app”一词来描述B与律所的关系.

调查没有. 95-2-3
通过:1995年3月21日

1. 规则1.第7(b)(4)款规定澳博app不得, 未经客户同意, represent a client where “the lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be adversely affected by the lawyer’s responsibilities to or interests in a third party or the lawyer’s own financial, 业务, 财产, 或者个人兴趣.”
2. 因为B将由公司雇佣和补偿, 这种情况不同于不同事务所的两名澳博app在一个案件中担任联合澳博app的常见情况. 在这种情况下, 一个澳博app的冲突不能归咎于另一个澳博app, 至少在不交换机密信息的情况下. E.g.Richers v. 沼泽 & McLennon Group associates, 459 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa 1990); Brennan’s Inc. v. 布伦南餐厅公司., 590 F.2d 168(第5章. 1979).
3. 规则7.禁止对澳博app服务进行虚假或误导性的宣传.